Yet you haven't explained how there's any difference.
The phone was a mainstream device. When Apple started, they set out to capture the top 1% of the market - and they did so.
The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.
So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?
Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.
That's been around for quite a while. It's still possible to buy a monitor and use it as your TV set. In fact, at least one of our sets is actually a monitor rather than a TV. I don't see anything particularly novel about Apple doing that.
The difference is that you said it wasn't mainstream and because you poo-poo'd the idea that the cost would be competitive. An Apple HDTV is not going to cost more than a Sony XBR and likely will cost a lot less. A 55" Apple HDTV won't cost the $3500 that Sony asks for their 55" XBR but likely will be comparable in quality (at least screen quality). A 55" Apple HDTV priced at $3500 isn't going to capture 1% of sales...23M units. $2000 is possible. That's still $800 more than the lowest end Sony 55" TV but still within that viable price range for volume.
Even then it's still questionable how successful it would be both in terms of volume and profit. And no one has answered the question how a $2000 55" Apple HDTV is superior for either Apple or the consumer than a $2000 Sony HDTV and a $99 aTV beyond a box the size of a hockey puck, one power cord and HDMI cable. The Apple HDTV would have a higher ASP and therefore higher 1st year revenue and profits but at the cost of agility for Apple.
That cost is HUGE. They can afford to ship a new aTV for $99 with greater processing power, storage, whatever any time they want and instead of a lot of grumbling that Apple has obsoleted a $2000 purchase folks will want to hand over another $99 for the improvements. $99 every couple years x 2-3 HDTVs in the house is far more lucrative than $2000 every 5-10 years in terms of footprint (how many households would buy into Apple TV), agility and replacement cycle.
Like I said, unless the IGZO panels or some other thing really has some huge advantage for HDTVs there's really no reason to prefer an Apple HDTV over a Samsung HDTV with a aTV attached. I just don't see Apple getting the content required to remove all the other boxes from the equation.
@Soli - thanks as always for your input as always
I'm actually going to side with Ireland this time, in that there will be no connectors of any kind on the TV itself save for a power connector. I'm even going to jump off the deep end, and say that the power cable will be either: a) to charge the panel only, or b) be as thin and easy as a MagSafe or 30-pin dock connector now.
I don't think so, at least not the 30 pin connector. Much of the power in an iPad 3 is used simply to power the display and backlight. A 50" TV would use approximately 25 times the power. You're limited with iPad charging rates by how fast you can charge through a 30 pin connector - and it takes 8 hours to charge an iPad. It would take days to charge your system.
I have a question for the tech gurus here: how much juice would a 36", 45", or even a 55" screen need for 5-8 hours of "on time"?
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding why in the world you'd want to have a 36-55" TV that was battery powered. It's far too large to be portable, so the advantage of battery power is non-existent.
What if the only components in the iPanel itself were the batteries (possibly?), a wifi chip, and stereo speakers? How much would that cost?.
Plus the CPU to decode the signal. Essentially, everything that a modern TV has. TVs could be made more energy efficient, perhaps, but not all that much until some new technologies are developed.
I'm actually going to side with Ireland this time, in that there will be no connectors of any kind on the TV itself save for a power connector. I'm even going to jump off the deep end, and say that the power cable will be either: a) to charge the panel only, or b) be as thin and easy as a MagSafe or 30-pin dock connector now.
I have a question for the tech gurus here: how much juice would a 36", 45", or even a 55" screen need for 5-8 hours of "on time"?
What if the only components in the iPanel itself were the batteries (possibly?), a wifi chip, and stereo speakers? How much would that cost?
No, "naysayers" will be stating it's stupid to include batteries on a device that weighs 45 lbs and isn't meant to be mobile. The power consumption is about 85.8W for the Sony 55".
And what are you going to do if you want to watch TV even though the batteries are drained? Take it off the wall so you can recharge at an outlet?
Quote:
I'm thinking the naysayers making statements similar to the last time with the iPad; "it's just a giant iPhone without the phone part", now is replaced with, "it's just a giant iPad without the touch UI"... or even "it's just a digital picture frame with a wifi connection and *speakers".
SJ was well known for a few guiding principles that dictated Apple's products, not least of which:
a) he hated cables(!)... and b) he loved "thin", "connected" and "wireless.
There is nothing uglier and more demanding of the placement of your entertainment system than the power outlets and the sat, cable, and stereo connection coming into a room. Imagine with an Apple iPanel being able to be free to hang it like a picture, or stand it on a table, dresser, where ever... without worrying... at all... about all of the cables needed to use it. Actually, the iPanel could be seen as a giant "mobile device" for the home, garden, garage, den. OK, granted the 55" would not be... but a 36" would only be as heavy as a normal picture in a glass frame.
He said it is always about the software and user interface, coupled with the hardware. What if he found a way to hijack all of the trash UI's in an entertainment system, and replace it with an Apple UI? I mentioned this earlier in the thread. There is nothing worse with current TV and Entertainment systems than all of the assorted remotes and GUI's.
*Speakers: while included in the iPanel for stand-alone usage, and optically connected with a stereo system in the main room, naturally I would expect Airport Express and anything wifi connected and using AirPlay could be used to output "higher" fidelity sound.
A box to control them all so-to-speak, and the only "part" of the Apple entertainment system that would be updated and/or replaced every 1-2 years. Apple also thinks "green", so I certainly wouldn't expect them to create such a large all-in-one landfill device every 2 years. It also doesn't fit their logistics or upgrade model at all. But a device not much larger (but probably not square) than a Mac Mini with every connector you need? That could work.
Naturally, Apple will surely do something to lock in the user and the devices. "iEntertain" would be 2 parts, that would need each other to work: the iPanel and the iDockTV box at a minimum. You got the iPanel, now you just replace the iDock for ~500,- every couple of years.
It goes without saying that the iPanel/iDock is fully iOS compatible. Apps and Airplay and iTunes Store... oh my!
Sorry for the long "brainstorm".
This is is viable since all these ports still exist, just on the Apple AV receiver rather than the TV. Many folks with a lot of inputs have a AV receiver that switches between HDMI inputs. The UI still tends to suck badly.
The downside is you STILL need a mass of remotes and integration with 3rd party devices still spotty. However, IF they can get Comcast to buy into the concept that's 99% of the problems resolved for Comcast subscribers and gives them a huge footprint of potential customers.
I think many of the folks that have been negative about an Apple HDTV has been VERY positive about an Apple AV receiver (which is what you are suggesting). The HDTV in the equation doesn't matter much. I can replicate the scenario with the tiny aTV installed behind a Sony HDTV, a short 0.5 meter HDMI cable and the same power outlet required by the HDTV.
The lineup of the current aTV for direct connection to a HDTV via HDMI for $99 and a apple AV receiver or HTiaB for $399-$599 is a decent one. An apple branded HDTV with just AirPlay inside is a nice adjunct but the whole thing will work with any existing HDTV and a $99 aTV.
Something roughly equivalent to this in features but much improved UX.
The difference is that you said it wasn't mainstream and because you poo-poo'd the idea that the cost would be competitive. An Apple HDTV is not going to cost more than a Sony XBR and likely will cost a lot less. A 55" Apple HDTV won't cost the $3500 that Sony asks for their 55" XBR but likely will be comparable in quality (at least screen quality). A 55" Apple HDTV priced at $3500 isn't going to capture 1% of sales...23M units. $2000 is possible. That's still $800 more than the lowest end Sony 55" TV but still within that viable price range for volume.
You obviously have me confused with someone else. I never poo-poo'd the idea that Apple could make a cost-competitive TV.
Furthermore, you don't have any idea of what share of the market Apple could capture at any price point. Five years ago, everyone laughed at the idea that Apple would capture even 1% of the phone market - yet here they are. All people are doing is spewing their own preconceived notions which are useless without knowing:
a. What unique features (if any) Apple would offer
b. What price Apple would offer
and
c. How the competition would respond.
Frankly, no one has any idea if it's viable without knowing the answer to those three questions. All of my posts on this subject have been to reinforce that point. It's entirely possible that Apple has something that's of sufficient value to justify a premium price and an entry into the market. OTOH, it's possible that Apple doesn't have anything justifying entry into the market. Anyone who claims to know how it's going to play out (either side of the picture) is blowing smoke.
You mean LED backlit LEDs? Maybe because they're still LCDs? I'm sure Apple will use LED backlit LCDs if they use any form of LCD. True full LED displays are either OLED (getting cheaper but still nowhere near this price range) or the gigantic screens known as Jumbotrons, which are not practical for home use.
It goes without saying that the iPanel/iDock is fully iOS compatible. Apps and Airplay and iTunes Store... oh my!
Sorry for the long "brainstorm".
I would love a few apps, but I think they would be very simplistic apps given the remote, simple things like weather, stocks and such that don't require a lot of user input. I don't know if Apple wants to deal with yet another category of apps though. I wouldn't mind hiding some of the tiles. But I think the better route to AppleTV apps might be to encourage iOS app makers to use AirPlay more.
To get me to buy, it has to be a truly compelling option...something that the other manufacturers don't do with their sets, or don't do well. Otherwise, why would I consider it? Certainly not price. I'm not spending $2,000 for 55" Apple television just because it looks cool and does what the AppleTV of today does. Thinking about this some more, I think it would have to add:
1) Everything the Apple TV does now
2) Superior screen and picture quality
3) Internal storage for downloaded and ripped content
4) The ability to run useful iOS apps and fully interface with other iOS devices.
At a reasonable price point, that may be worth it. But it's basically today's Apple TV with nice screen, no thanks. I'll go with one of the established LCD/LED manufacturers.
No, "naysayers" will be stating it's stupid to include batteries on a device that weighs 45 lbs and isn't meant to be mobile. The power consumption is about 85.8W for the Sony 55".
And what are you going to do if you want to watch TV even though the batteries are drained? Take it off the wall so you can recharge at an outlet?
Just maybe there are other advances that "we" don't know about, possibly by Sharp or LG?
Yes I jumped off the deep end, but a battery the size of the iPad's would probably suffice, as well as a power cable as thin and small as the MagSafe or 30-Pin. Just bouncing stuff off here.
This is is viable since all these ports still exist, just on the Apple AV receiver rather than the TV. Many folks with a lot of inputs have a AV receiver that switches between HDMI inputs. The UI still tends to suck badly.
The downside is you STILL need a mass of remotes and integration with 3rd party devices still spotty. However, IF they can get Comcast to buy into the concept that's 99% of the problems resolved for Comcast subscribers and gives them a huge footprint of potential customers.
I think many of the folks that have been negative about an Apple HDTV has been VERY positive about an Apple AV receiver (which is what you are suggesting). The HDTV in the equation doesn't matter much. I can replicate the scenario with the tiny aTV installed behind a Sony HDTV, a short 0.5 meter HDMI cable and the same power outlet required by the HDTV.
The lineup of the current aTV for direct connection to a HDTV via HDMI for $99 and a apple AV receiver or HTiaB for $399-$599 is a decent one. An apple branded HDTV with just AirPlay inside is a nice adjunct but the whole thing will work with any existing HDTV and a $99 aTV.
Something roughly equivalent to this in features but much improved UX.
Don't forget... I mentioned that Apple had a way to intercept the signals, both HDMI and IR. Yes... an AV receiver type of device... coupled to any AirPlay capable SCREEN.
@jragosta = well where's the CPU & GPU now in a Retina iPad, how big is it, and how much battery-life do you get? That's 2048x1536... more than any consumer TV on the market at the moment.
I think the tech is here now... even if it is "cutting-edge" and not up to speed production-wise, that's what makes Apple stuff special and their engineers "pee in their pants" just a little every day I expect.
It's the obvious thing that currently only Apple does, with the coupling of software, hardware, and "magical dust"... that makes it a "face-palm" moment for the other guys and CEOs.
PS. There is NO WAY that Apple is going to bring out a TV like anything even close to what's currently on the market. That's a 99.99% money bet
Yes... an AV receiver type of device... coupled to any AirPlay capable SCREEN.
I have always stated it makes more sense for Apple to license AirPlay to LG/Sharp/Vizio/etc than it would be to make their own TV. The ability to use your iOS device on many if not most HDTVs on the market without needing the aTV would be another game changer.
Sony would decline. Samsung might say yes. For LG/Sharp/Vizio it's probably a no brainer.
1. ease of use. that's why apple is going to build, and sell, a ton of tv's.
how much easier was it to get to ALL of the apps on an iPhone than anything else that was out in june '07?
how much easier was the original iPod to use than any other MP3 player on the market at the time?
for the past 20 years, how much easier has MacOS been to use than Windows?
2. as for motion gestures to control a TV, those are stupid. nobody wants to grasp at the air and wave their arms up and down and around in circles to change the channel. we want to shut our brains off, be as lazy as possible, and barely press down on our thumbs to hit the button on the remote in our hand.
3. the TV isn't an accessory, it's a computer. apple will only build what now considered a "smart tv".
Bigger IS better when it comes to TV. I remember when 27" flat screen TVs cost more than your first born and everyone was saying you'd never need anything larger. They tried to show models at the stores that showed the size of living room you'd need in order to go larger. I'd stifle my yawn, dreaming of 100+ inch screens.
I want my entire wall to be a screen. We pay $10 to go to a theater for the grand experience. That's what I want in my home.
My God you people who have nothing better to do but CORRECT things that people write online need to get a life. We are human and as such, will make mistakes. Worry about yourself! What good does demeaning a writer make you feel good or something? Mistake or not, you all knew what the writer meant to say. Shame on you.
My God you people who have nothing better to do but CORRECT things that people write online need to get a life. We are human and as such, will make mistakes. Worry about yourself! What good does demeaning a writer make you feel good or something? Mistake or not, you all knew what the writer meant to say. Shame on you.
What did he "mean" to say?
I think he meant to say a TV is complete fantasy created by a chosen few in the media because they realize they were idiots for ever saying "iPad mini". The rest keep reporting on the iPad mini.
You created an account on a website to complain about grammar nazis. I'm not sure who's "the fool who follows him" here.
Some of the replies here are a bit amusing (wanting a full blown iMac with a 55" screen in a $2K TV, for instance). But the most common thing in some of the replies is what you've pointed out, in regard to the pricing on smart TV's (which I would assume this Apple TV would be) vs. those with only some or no internet connectivity.
Other than the scratch & dent sale at Walmart on Vizios, I also haven't seen some of the "great deals" that many here seem to know about. If Apple does it, great. If they don't, that'll be OK too. But if they do produce one and the features and pricing are acceptable, I'll probably wait for at least the second generation before making a purchase anyway.
There's a lot of talk here about what "I" think should happen, what Apple needs to do to compete etc. But no one seems to have considered how Apple would view this. Apple doesn't design based on the other boys. They don't pick their products by what the other boys are doing. Etc.
From Apple's POV what would be the need filled by this TV set. And how could they "do it better". Those are the questions they ask not "what's everyone else doing" or even "what do the geeks on the blogs think we should do and how do they think we should do it".
Apple has shown that they can do a fairly good job at serving up content with the current little black box. Much of the failings on that front are due to content deals, or rather lack of. Get the networks and studios on board with the pricing, quality and timing issues and much of that is solved. Even things like how those iTunes Extras still don't work on the Apple TV system could be due to studios not wanting them to work on 'tvs' so that they don't take away from disc sales. Make them get over that either by convincing them they are wrong or just do it anyway (like Apple did with the longer previews on music). And so on.
What could making a 'real' TV do on those fronts that the box can't. Nothing. Same with the UI issues.
Apple has a history of leaving things to do those that can do it better and right now that's Sony etc. What could Apple possibly do better than them that would push them to making their own real TV. Can they make a better screen, can they make it thinner, more energy efficient. Perhaps. But making a TV means getting into bed with those other companies over needed patents and that's a big messy to do. Apple's only going to go there if they can make major improvements in the game enough to make it worth it. If they don't have to go there then they won't. And frankly they don't. IF they are making some kind of display item that could be all it is. A display. A dumb display. Beautiful, energy efficient screen. Lightweight size with perhaps even the VESA adapter built in for wall mounting. Couple of screen size options. And the needed inputs for you to hook it up to your computer, blu-ray, Apple TV or even cable box. Beautiful and flexible enough to 'compete' with those tvs without actually trying to compete. And who knows, if they aren't chasing all those patents maybe they can manage something in the 46-55" inch range that's under $3k
Look at this with Apple Eyes based on what they have and are doing and what they say and ask yourself if you really believe that Apple is going to chase this market by copying all the other boys, or by ignoring them to a major degree, improving two markets (tvs and computer displays) at once with one product and keeping the 'smart' in the little black box and their content offerings.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yet you haven't explained how there's any difference.
The phone was a mainstream device. When Apple started, they set out to capture the top 1% of the market - and they did so.
The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.
So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?
Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.
That's been around for quite a while. It's still possible to buy a monitor and use it as your TV set. In fact, at least one of our sets is actually a monitor rather than a TV. I don't see anything particularly novel about Apple doing that.
The difference is that you said it wasn't mainstream and because you poo-poo'd the idea that the cost would be competitive. An Apple HDTV is not going to cost more than a Sony XBR and likely will cost a lot less. A 55" Apple HDTV won't cost the $3500 that Sony asks for their 55" XBR but likely will be comparable in quality (at least screen quality). A 55" Apple HDTV priced at $3500 isn't going to capture 1% of sales...23M units. $2000 is possible. That's still $800 more than the lowest end Sony 55" TV but still within that viable price range for volume.
Even then it's still questionable how successful it would be both in terms of volume and profit. And no one has answered the question how a $2000 55" Apple HDTV is superior for either Apple or the consumer than a $2000 Sony HDTV and a $99 aTV beyond a box the size of a hockey puck, one power cord and HDMI cable. The Apple HDTV would have a higher ASP and therefore higher 1st year revenue and profits but at the cost of agility for Apple.
That cost is HUGE. They can afford to ship a new aTV for $99 with greater processing power, storage, whatever any time they want and instead of a lot of grumbling that Apple has obsoleted a $2000 purchase folks will want to hand over another $99 for the improvements. $99 every couple years x 2-3 HDTVs in the house is far more lucrative than $2000 every 5-10 years in terms of footprint (how many households would buy into Apple TV), agility and replacement cycle.
Like I said, unless the IGZO panels or some other thing really has some huge advantage for HDTVs there's really no reason to prefer an Apple HDTV over a Samsung HDTV with a aTV attached. I just don't see Apple getting the content required to remove all the other boxes from the equation.
I don't think so, at least not the 30 pin connector. Much of the power in an iPad 3 is used simply to power the display and backlight. A 50" TV would use approximately 25 times the power. You're limited with iPad charging rates by how fast you can charge through a 30 pin connector - and it takes 8 hours to charge an iPad. It would take days to charge your system.
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding why in the world you'd want to have a 36-55" TV that was battery powered. It's far too large to be portable, so the advantage of battery power is non-existent.
Plus the CPU to decode the signal. Essentially, everything that a modern TV has. TVs could be made more energy efficient, perhaps, but not all that much until some new technologies are developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
@Soli - thanks as always for your input as always
I'm actually going to side with Ireland this time, in that there will be no connectors of any kind on the TV itself save for a power connector. I'm even going to jump off the deep end, and say that the power cable will be either: a) to charge the panel only, or b) be as thin and easy as a MagSafe or 30-pin dock connector now.
I have a question for the tech gurus here: how much juice would a 36", 45", or even a 55" screen need for 5-8 hours of "on time"?
What if the only components in the iPanel itself were the batteries (possibly?), a wifi chip, and stereo speakers? How much would that cost?
No, "naysayers" will be stating it's stupid to include batteries on a device that weighs 45 lbs and isn't meant to be mobile. The power consumption is about 85.8W for the Sony 55".
And what are you going to do if you want to watch TV even though the batteries are drained? Take it off the wall so you can recharge at an outlet?
Quote:
I'm thinking the naysayers making statements similar to the last time with the iPad; "it's just a giant iPhone without the phone part", now is replaced with, "it's just a giant iPad without the touch UI"... or even "it's just a digital picture frame with a wifi connection and *speakers".
SJ was well known for a few guiding principles that dictated Apple's products, not least of which:
a) he hated cables(!)... and b) he loved "thin", "connected" and "wireless.
There is nothing uglier and more demanding of the placement of your entertainment system than the power outlets and the sat, cable, and stereo connection coming into a room. Imagine with an Apple iPanel being able to be free to hang it like a picture, or stand it on a table, dresser, where ever... without worrying... at all... about all of the cables needed to use it. Actually, the iPanel could be seen as a giant "mobile device" for the home, garden, garage, den. OK, granted the 55" would not be... but a 36" would only be as heavy as a normal picture in a glass frame.
He said it is always about the software and user interface, coupled with the hardware. What if he found a way to hijack all of the trash UI's in an entertainment system, and replace it with an Apple UI? I mentioned this earlier in the thread. There is nothing worse with current TV and Entertainment systems than all of the assorted remotes and GUI's.
*Speakers: while included in the iPanel for stand-alone usage, and optically connected with a stereo system in the main room, naturally I would expect Airport Express and anything wifi connected and using AirPlay could be used to output "higher" fidelity sound.
A box to control them all so-to-speak, and the only "part" of the Apple entertainment system that would be updated and/or replaced every 1-2 years. Apple also thinks "green", so I certainly wouldn't expect them to create such a large all-in-one landfill device every 2 years. It also doesn't fit their logistics or upgrade model at all. But a device not much larger (but probably not square) than a Mac Mini with every connector you need? That could work.
Naturally, Apple will surely do something to lock in the user and the devices. "iEntertain" would be 2 parts, that would need each other to work: the iPanel and the iDockTV box at a minimum. You got the iPanel, now you just replace the iDock for ~500,- every couple of years.
It goes without saying that the iPanel/iDock is fully iOS compatible. Apps and Airplay and iTunes Store... oh my!
Sorry for the long "brainstorm".
This is is viable since all these ports still exist, just on the Apple AV receiver rather than the TV. Many folks with a lot of inputs have a AV receiver that switches between HDMI inputs. The UI still tends to suck badly.
The downside is you STILL need a mass of remotes and integration with 3rd party devices still spotty. However, IF they can get Comcast to buy into the concept that's 99% of the problems resolved for Comcast subscribers and gives them a huge footprint of potential customers.
I think many of the folks that have been negative about an Apple HDTV has been VERY positive about an Apple AV receiver (which is what you are suggesting). The HDTV in the equation doesn't matter much. I can replicate the scenario with the tiny aTV installed behind a Sony HDTV, a short 0.5 meter HDMI cable and the same power outlet required by the HDTV.
The lineup of the current aTV for direct connection to a HDTV via HDMI for $99 and a apple AV receiver or HTiaB for $399-$599 is a decent one. An apple branded HDTV with just AirPlay inside is a nice adjunct but the whole thing will work with any existing HDTV and a $99 aTV.
Something roughly equivalent to this in features but much improved UX.
http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-Channel-Certified-Receiver/dp/B004O0TRD8
You obviously have me confused with someone else. I never poo-poo'd the idea that Apple could make a cost-competitive TV.
Furthermore, you don't have any idea of what share of the market Apple could capture at any price point. Five years ago, everyone laughed at the idea that Apple would capture even 1% of the phone market - yet here they are. All people are doing is spewing their own preconceived notions which are useless without knowing:
a. What unique features (if any) Apple would offer
b. What price Apple would offer
and
c. How the competition would respond.
Frankly, no one has any idea if it's viable without knowing the answer to those three questions. All of my posts on this subject have been to reinforce that point. It's entirely possible that Apple has something that's of sufficient value to justify a premium price and an entry into the market. OTOH, it's possible that Apple doesn't have anything justifying entry into the market. Anyone who claims to know how it's going to play out (either side of the picture) is blowing smoke.
why did not they use LEDs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahlal86
why did not they use LEDs?
You say that as though it exists or will ever exist.
No TV uses LEDs. TVs use LCDs with LED backlights. OLED TVs are too expensive to even look at.
You mean LED backlit LEDs? Maybe because they're still LCDs? I'm sure Apple will use LED backlit LCDs if they use any form of LCD. True full LED displays are either OLED (getting cheaper but still nowhere near this price range) or the gigantic screens known as Jumbotrons, which are not practical for home use.
I would love a few apps, but I think they would be very simplistic apps given the remote, simple things like weather, stocks and such that don't require a lot of user input. I don't know if Apple wants to deal with yet another category of apps though. I wouldn't mind hiding some of the tiles. But I think the better route to AppleTV apps might be to encourage iOS app makers to use AirPlay more.
To get me to buy, it has to be a truly compelling option...something that the other manufacturers don't do with their sets, or don't do well. Otherwise, why would I consider it? Certainly not price. I'm not spending $2,000 for 55" Apple television just because it looks cool and does what the AppleTV of today does. Thinking about this some more, I think it would have to add:
1) Everything the Apple TV does now
2) Superior screen and picture quality
3) Internal storage for downloaded and ripped content
4) The ability to run useful iOS apps and fully interface with other iOS devices.
At a reasonable price point, that may be worth it. But it's basically today's Apple TV with nice screen, no thanks. I'll go with one of the established LCD/LED manufacturers.
This was recently shown at CES 2011 by Samsung Bendable Screen... and this in 2009 by Sony.
Just maybe there are other advances that "we" don't know about, possibly by Sharp or LG?
Yes I jumped off the deep end, but a battery the size of the iPad's would probably suffice, as well as a power cable as thin and small as the MagSafe or 30-Pin. Just bouncing stuff off here.
Don't forget... I mentioned that Apple had a way to intercept the signals, both HDMI and IR. Yes... an AV receiver type of device... coupled to any AirPlay capable SCREEN.
@jragosta = well where's the CPU & GPU now in a Retina iPad, how big is it, and how much battery-life do you get? That's 2048x1536... more than any consumer TV on the market at the moment.
I think the tech is here now... even if it is "cutting-edge" and not up to speed production-wise, that's what makes Apple stuff special and their engineers "pee in their pants" just a little every day I expect.
It's the obvious thing that currently only Apple does, with the coupling of software, hardware, and "magical dust"... that makes it a "face-palm" moment for the other guys and CEOs.
PS. There is NO WAY that Apple is going to bring out a TV like anything even close to what's currently on the market. That's a 99.99% money bet
....and this prediction seems on the "Apple-innovation-lite" side... [URL=http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/04/brightcove_ceo_expects_apple_tv_add_on_for_facetime_motion_control.html]also here at AI[/URL]
I'm not the only one "thinking outside the box".... so what's wrong with you guys?... start "Californ-i-A-Dreamin'" for a change. It's fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Yes... an AV receiver type of device... coupled to any AirPlay capable SCREEN.
I have always stated it makes more sense for Apple to license AirPlay to LG/Sharp/Vizio/etc than it would be to make their own TV. The ability to use your iOS device on many if not most HDTVs on the market without needing the aTV would be another game changer.
Sony would decline. Samsung might say yes. For LG/Sharp/Vizio it's probably a no brainer.
I hope we all still remember :
"You watch television to turn your brain off and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on." -- Steve Jobs
so...as Steve left us...Apple do want us to turn our brain off... XD
This thread is funny. It's so american with the bigger is better attitude
1. ease of use. that's why apple is going to build, and sell, a ton of tv's.
how much easier was it to get to ALL of the apps on an iPhone than anything else that was out in june '07?
how much easier was the original iPod to use than any other MP3 player on the market at the time?
for the past 20 years, how much easier has MacOS been to use than Windows?
2. as for motion gestures to control a TV, those are stupid. nobody wants to grasp at the air and wave their arms up and down and around in circles to change the channel. we want to shut our brains off, be as lazy as possible, and barely press down on our thumbs to hit the button on the remote in our hand.
3. the TV isn't an accessory, it's a computer. apple will only build what now considered a "smart tv".
Bigger IS better when it comes to TV. I remember when 27" flat screen TVs cost more than your first born and everyone was saying you'd never need anything larger. They tried to show models at the stores that showed the size of living room you'd need in order to go larger. I'd stifle my yawn, dreaming of 100+ inch screens.
I want my entire wall to be a screen. We pay $10 to go to a theater for the grand experience. That's what I want in my home.
My God you people who have nothing better to do but CORRECT things that people write online need to get a life. We are human and as such, will make mistakes. Worry about yourself! What good does demeaning a writer make you feel good or something? Mistake or not, you all knew what the writer meant to say. Shame on you.
Gene Munster!
Has he ever gotten anything right about apple?
Who is paying him to come up with his fantasy literature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Krouse
My God you people who have nothing better to do but CORRECT things that people write online need to get a life. We are human and as such, will make mistakes. Worry about yourself! What good does demeaning a writer make you feel good or something? Mistake or not, you all knew what the writer meant to say. Shame on you.
What did he "mean" to say?
I think he meant to say a TV is complete fantasy created by a chosen few in the media because they realize they were idiots for ever saying "iPad mini". The rest keep reporting on the iPad mini.
You created an account on a website to complain about grammar nazis. I'm not sure who's "the fool who follows him" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
Anyone here who thinks $2K for a "Smart TV" is ridiculous...
the MSRP in the United States on Samsung's top of the line 55" LED TV is $3379, and the lowest ONLINE price i've seen is $2398
LG's 55" flagship has an MSRP of $3599.
http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-new-smart-tvs
http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/all-tvs
Some of the replies here are a bit amusing (wanting a full blown iMac with a 55" screen in a $2K TV, for instance). But the most common thing in some of the replies is what you've pointed out, in regard to the pricing on smart TV's (which I would assume this Apple TV would be) vs. those with only some or no internet connectivity.
Other than the scratch & dent sale at Walmart on Vizios, I also haven't seen some of the "great deals" that many here seem to know about. If Apple does it, great. If they don't, that'll be OK too. But if they do produce one and the features and pricing are acceptable, I'll probably wait for at least the second generation before making a purchase anyway.
There's a lot of talk here about what "I" think should happen, what Apple needs to do to compete etc. But no one seems to have considered how Apple would view this. Apple doesn't design based on the other boys. They don't pick their products by what the other boys are doing. Etc.
From Apple's POV what would be the need filled by this TV set. And how could they "do it better". Those are the questions they ask not "what's everyone else doing" or even "what do the geeks on the blogs think we should do and how do they think we should do it".
Apple has shown that they can do a fairly good job at serving up content with the current little black box. Much of the failings on that front are due to content deals, or rather lack of. Get the networks and studios on board with the pricing, quality and timing issues and much of that is solved. Even things like how those iTunes Extras still don't work on the Apple TV system could be due to studios not wanting them to work on 'tvs' so that they don't take away from disc sales. Make them get over that either by convincing them they are wrong or just do it anyway (like Apple did with the longer previews on music). And so on.
What could making a 'real' TV do on those fronts that the box can't. Nothing. Same with the UI issues.
Apple has a history of leaving things to do those that can do it better and right now that's Sony etc. What could Apple possibly do better than them that would push them to making their own real TV. Can they make a better screen, can they make it thinner, more energy efficient. Perhaps. But making a TV means getting into bed with those other companies over needed patents and that's a big messy to do. Apple's only going to go there if they can make major improvements in the game enough to make it worth it. If they don't have to go there then they won't. And frankly they don't. IF they are making some kind of display item that could be all it is. A display. A dumb display. Beautiful, energy efficient screen. Lightweight size with perhaps even the VESA adapter built in for wall mounting. Couple of screen size options. And the needed inputs for you to hook it up to your computer, blu-ray, Apple TV or even cable box. Beautiful and flexible enough to 'compete' with those tvs without actually trying to compete. And who knows, if they aren't chasing all those patents maybe they can manage something in the 46-55" inch range that's under $3k
Look at this with Apple Eyes based on what they have and are doing and what they say and ask yourself if you really believe that Apple is going to chase this market by copying all the other boys, or by ignoring them to a major degree, improving two markets (tvs and computer displays) at once with one product and keeping the 'smart' in the little black box and their content offerings.